Drs El-Khatib and Rizk and Ms HajAli are affiliated with the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. Dr Zeinelddine is affiliated with the Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. Mr van der Staay is affiliated with IMT Information Management Technology, Buchs, Switzerland. Mr Chatburn is affiliated with the Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Respir Care. 2024 Mar 27;69(4):449-462. doi: 10.4187/respcare.11470.
In recent years, mechanical power (MP) has emerged as an important concept that can significantly impact outcomes from mechanical ventilation. Several individual components of ventilatory support such as tidal volume (V), breathing frequency, and PEEP have been shown to contribute to the extent of MP delivered from a mechanical ventilator to patients in respiratory distress/failure. The aim of this study was to identify which common individual setting of mechanical ventilation is more efficient in maintaining safe and protective levels of MP using different modes of ventilation in simulated subjects with ARDS.
We used an interactive mathematical model of ventilator output during volume control ventilation (VCV) with either constant inspiratory flow (VCV-CF) or descending ramp inspiratory flow, as well as pressure control ventilation (PCV). MP values were determined for simulated subjects with mild, moderate, and severe ARDS; and whenever MP > 17 J/min, V, breathing frequency, or PEEP was manipulated independently to bring back MP to ≤ 17 J/min. Finally, the optimum V-breathing frequency combinations for MP = 17 J/min were determined with all 3 modes of ventilation.
VCV-CF always resulted in the lowest MPs while PCV resulted in highest MPs. Reductions in V were the most efficient for maintaining safer and protective MP. At targeted MPs of 17 J/min and maximized minute ventilation, the optimum V-breathing frequency combinations were 250-350 mL for V and 32-35 breaths/min for breathing frequency in mild ARDS, 200-350 mL for V and 34-40 breaths/min for breathing frequency in moderate ARDS, and 200-300 mL for V and 37-45 breaths/min for breathing frequency for severe ARDS.
VCV-CF resulted in the lowest MP. V was the most efficient for maintaining safe and protective MP in a mathematical simulation of subjects with ARDS. In the context of maintaining low and safe MPs, ventilatory strategies with lower-than-normal V and higher-than-normal breathing frequency will need to be implemented in patients with ARDS.
近年来,机械功率(MP)已成为一个重要概念,它可以显著影响机械通气的结果。已经证明,通气支持的几个单个组件,例如潮气量(V)、呼吸频率和 PEEP,有助于从机械呼吸机向呼吸窘迫/衰竭的患者输送机械功率。本研究的目的是确定在模拟 ARDS 患者中使用不同通气模式时,哪种常见的机械通气单个设置在维持安全和保护水平的 MP 方面更有效。
我们使用了一种容积控制通气(VCV)的交互式呼吸机输出数学模型,该模型具有恒定的吸气流量(VCV-CF)或下降斜坡吸气流量,以及压力控制通气(PCV)。为轻度、中度和重度 ARDS 模拟患者确定了 MP 值;并且只要 MP > 17 J/min,就会独立地操纵 V、呼吸频率或 PEEP,以使 MP 恢复到 ≤ 17 J/min。最后,使用所有 3 种通气模式确定了 MP = 17 J/min 的最佳 V-呼吸频率组合。
VCV-CF 始终导致最低的 MPs,而 PCV 导致最高的 MPs。降低 V 是维持更安全和保护 MP 的最有效方法。在目标 MP 为 17 J/min 和最大分钟通气量下,轻度 ARDS 的最佳 V-呼吸频率组合为 V 为 250-350 mL,呼吸频率为 32-35 次/分钟,中度 ARDS 为 V 为 200-350 mL,呼吸频率为 34-40 次/分钟,重度 ARDS 为 V 为 200-300 mL,呼吸频率为 37-45 次/分钟。
VCV-CF 导致最低的 MP。在 ARDS 模拟患者中,V 是维持安全和保护 MP 的最有效方法。在维持低和安全 MPs 的情况下,ARDS 患者需要实施低于正常 V 和高于正常呼吸频率的通气策略。